9372. And He said unto Moses. That this signifies that which concerns the Word in general, is evident from the representation of Moses, as being the Word (of which below); and from the signification of “He said,” as involving those things which follow in this chapter, thus those which concern the Word (see n. 9370). (That Moses represents the Word, can be seen from what has been often shown before about Moses, as from the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 4859, 5922, 6723, 6752, 6771, 6827, 7010, 7014, 7089, 7382, 8601, 8760, 8787, 8805.) Here Moses represents the Word in general, because it is said of him in what follows, that he alone should come near unto Jehovah (verse 2); and also that, being called unto out of the midst of the cloud, he entered into it, and went up the mount (verses 16-18).

[2] In the Word there are many who represent the Lord in respect to truth Divine, or in respect to the Word; but chief among them are Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist. That Moses does so, can be seen in the explications just cited above; that so do Elijah and Elisha, can be seen in the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 2762, 5247; and that John the Baptist does so is evident from the fact that he was “Elias who was to come.” He who does not know that John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, cannot know what all those things infold and signify which are said about him in the New Testament; and therefore in order that this secret may stand open, and that at the same time it may appear that Elias, and also Moses, who were seen when the Lord was transfigured, signified the Word, some things may here be quoted which are spoken about John the Baptist; as in Matthew:

After the messengers of John had departed, Jesus began to speak concerning John, saying, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? a reed shaken by the wind? But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft things are in kings’ houses. But what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, even more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send Mine angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee. Verily I say unto you, Among those who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye are willing to believe, he is Elias who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 11:7-15; and also Luke 7:24-28).

No one can know how these things are to be understood, unless he knows that this John represented the Lord as to the Word, and unless he also knows from the internal sense what is signified by “the wilderness” in which he was, also what by “a reed shaken by the wind,” and likewise by “soft raiment in kings’ houses;” and further what is signified by his being “more than a prophet,” and by “none among those who are born of women being greater than he, and nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he,” and lastly by his being “Elias.” For without a deeper sense, all these words are uttered merely from some comparison, and not from anything of weight.

[3] But it is very different when by John is understood the Lord as to the Word, or the Word representatively. Then by “the wilderness of Judea in which John was” is signified the state in which the Word was at the time when the Lord came into the world, namely, that it was “in the wilderness,” that is, it was in obscurity so great that the Lord was not at all acknowledged, neither was anything known about His heavenly kingdom; when yet all the prophets prophesied about Him, and about His kingdom, that it was to endure forever. (That “a wilderness” denotes such obscurity, see n. 2708, 4736, 7313.) For this reason the Word is compared to “a reed shaken by the wind” when it is explained at pleasure; for in the internal sense “a reed” denotes truth in the ultimate, such as is the Word in the letter.

[4] That the Word in the ultimate, or in the letter, is crude and obscure in the sight of men; but that in the internal sense it is soft and shining, is signified by their “not seeing a man clothed in soft raiment, for behold those who wear soft things are in kings’ houses.” That such things are signified by these words, is plain from the signification of “raiment,” or “garments,” as being truths (n. 2132, 2576, 4545, 4763, 5248, 6914, 6918, 9093); and for this reason the angels appear clothed in garments soft and shining according to the truths from good with them (n. 5248, 5319, 5954, 9212, 9216). The same is evident from the signification of “kings’ houses,” as being the abodes of the angels, and in the universal sense, the heavens; for “houses” are so called from good (n. 2233, 2234, 3128, 3652, 3720, 4622, 4982, 7836, 7891, 7996, 7997); and “kings,” from truth (n. 1672, 2015, 2069, 3009, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 6148). Therefore by virtue of their reception of truth from the Lord, the angels are called “sons of the kingdom,” “sons of the king,” and also “kings.”

[5] That the Word is more than any doctrine in the world, and more than any truth in the world, is signified by “what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet;” and by, “there hath not arisen among those who are born of women a greater than John the Baptist;” for in the internal sense “a prophet” denotes doctrine (n. 2534, 7269); and “those who are born,” or are the sons, “of women” denote truths (n. 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2623, 2803, 2813, 3704, 4257).

[6] That in the internal sense, or such as it is in heaven, the Word is in a degree above the Word in the external sense, or such as it is in the world, and such as John the Baptist taught, is signified by, “he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he;” for as perceived in heaven the Word is of wisdom so great that it transcends all human apprehension. That the prophecies about the Lord and His coming, and that the representatives of the Lord and of His kingdom, ceased when the Lord came into the world, is signified by, “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” That the Word was represented by John, as by Elijah, is signified by his being “Elias who is to come.”

[7] The same is signified by these words in Matthew:

The disciples asked Jesus, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? He answered and said, Elias must needs first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias hath come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. And they understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13).

That “Elias hath come, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished” signifies that the Word has indeed taught them that the Lord is to come, but that still they did not wish to comprehend, interpreting it in favor of the rule of self, and thus extinguishing what is Divine in it. That they would do the same with the truth Divine itself, is signified by “even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.” (That “the Son of man” denotes the Lord as to truth Divine, see n. 2803, 2813, 3704)

[8] From all this it is now evident what is meant by the prophecy about John in Malachi:

Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah cometh (Malachi 4:5).

Moreover, the Word in the ultimate, or such as it is in the external form in which it appears before man in the world, is described by the “clothing” and “food” of John the Baptist, in Matthew:

John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, had His clothing of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:1, 4).

In like manner it is described by Elijah in the second book of Kings:

He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins (2 Kings 1:8).

By “clothing,” or a “garment,” when said of the Word, is signified truth Divine there in the ultimate form; by “camel’s hair” are signified memory-truths such as appear there before a man in the world; by the “leathern girdle” is signified the external bond connecting and keeping in order all the interior things; by “food” is signified spiritual nourishment from the knowledges of truth and of good out of the Word; by “locusts” are signified ultimate or most general truths; and by “wild honey” their pleasantness.

[9] That such things are signified by “clothing” and “food” has its origin in the representatives of the other life, where all appear clothed according to truths from good, and where food also is represented according to the desires of acquiring knowledge and growing wise. From this it is that “clothing,” or a “garment,” denotes truth (as may be seen from the citations above; and that “food” or “meat” denotes spiritual nourishment, n. 3114, 4459, 4792, 5147, 5293, 5340, 5342, 5576, 5579, 5915, 8562, 9003; that “a girdle” denotes a bond which gathers up and holds together interior things, n. 9341; that “leather” denotes what is external, n. 3540; and thus “a leathern girdle” denotes an external bond; that “hairs” denote ultimate or most general truths, n. 3301, 5569-5573; that “a camel” denotes memory-knowledge in general, n. 3048, 3071, 3143, 3145, 4156; that “a locust” denotes nourishing truth in the extremes, n. 7643; and that “honey” denotes the pleasantness thereof, n. 5620, 6857, 8056). It is called “wild honey,” or “honey of the field,” because by “a field” is signified the church (n. 2971, 3317, 3766, 7502, 7571, 9139, 9295). He who does not know that such things are signified, cannot possibly know why Elijah and John were so clothed. And yet that these things signified something peculiar to these prophets, can be thought by everyone who thinks well about the Word.

[10] Because John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, therefore also when he spoke of the Lord, who was the Word itself, he said of himself that he was “not Elias, nor the prophet,” and that he was “not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord’s shoe,” as in John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. The Jews from Jerusalem, priests and Levites, asked John who he was. And he confessed, and denied not, I am not the Christ. Therefore they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? But he said, I am not. Art thou the prophet? He answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. They said therefore, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? He answered, I baptize with water; in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not; He it is who is to come after me, who was before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. When he saw Jesus, he said, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was before me; for he was before me (John 1:1, 14, 19-30).

From these words it is plain that when John spoke about the Lord Himself, who was Truth Divine itself, or the Word, he said that he himself was not anything, because the shadow disappears when the light itself appears, that is, the representative disappears when the original itself makes its appearance. (That the representatives had in view holy things, and the Lord Himself, and not at all the person that represented, see n. 665, 1097, 1361, 3147, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4292, 4307, 4444, 4500, 6304, 7048, 7439, 8588, 8788, 8806.) One who does not know that representatives vanish like shadows at the presence of light, cannot know why John denied that he was Elias and the prophet.

[11] From all this it can now be seen what is signified by Moses and Elias, who were seen in glory, and who spoke with the Lord when transfigured, of His departure which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:29-31); namely, that they signified the Word (“Moses” the historic Word, and “Elias” the prophetic Word), which in the internal sense throughout treats of the Lord, of His coming into the world, and of His departure out of the world; and therefore it is said that “Moses and Elias were seen in glory,” for “glory” denotes the internal sense of the Word, and the “cloud” its external sense (see the preface to Genesis 18, and n. 5922, 8427).

8563. And the people quarreled with Moses. That this signifies a grievous complaining against truth Divine, is evident from the signification of “to quarrel,” as being a grievous complaining, for he who quarrels in temptation grievously complains; and from the representation of Moses, as being truth Divine (see n. 6723, 6752, 6771, 6827, 7010, 7014, 7089, 7382).

2004. And thou shalt be for a father of a multitude of nations. That this signifies the union of the Human Essence with the Divine Essence, cannot be seen so well from an unfolding of the several words in the internal sense, unless they are viewed in a kind of general idea, by which this sense is presented, for such is sometimes the nature of the internal sense, and when it is so, it may be called more universal, because more remote. From the explication of the several words there results this proximate sense: that all truth and all good come from the Lord, for, as we shall see presently, the expression “father” here signifies from Him, that is, from the Lord; “multitude” signifies truth; and “of nations” signifies the good thence derived. But because these-that is, truths and goods-are the means through which the Lord united the Human Essence to the Divine Essence, there arises from this that more universal and more remote sense. The angels perceive these words in this way, and have at the same time a perception of reciprocal union, namely, that of the Lord’s Divine Essence with the Human Essence and of the Human Essence with the Divine Essence; for, as before said, “I, My covenant is with thee” signifies the union of the Divine Essence with the Human Essence; and consequently the words now under consideration signify the union of the Human Essence with the Divine Essence.

[2] That the union was effected reciprocally, is an arcanum which has not yet been disclosed, and it is such an arcanum as can scarcely be explained to the apprehension; for as yet no one knows what influx is, and without a knowledge of influx no idea can possibly be formed in regard to what is reciprocal union. Yet this may in some measure be illustrated from the influx in the case of man, for with man too there is a reciprocal conjunction. From the Lord, through man’s internal (treated of just above, n. 1999), life continually flows into man’s rational, and through this into his external, and in fact into his knowledges [scientifica et cognitiones], and this life not only adapts them to receive the life, but also disposes them into order, and so enables the man to think, and finally to be rational. Such is the conjunction of the Lord with man, without which man could not think at all, still less be rational, as everyone can see from the fact that there are in man’s thoughts numberless arcana of science and analytical art-too numerous to render their exploration possible to all eternity-and which do by no means flow in through the senses or through the external man, but through the internal. Man however, on his part, by means of knowledges [scientifica et cognitiones], advances to meet this life which is from the Lord, and thereby reciprocally conjoins himself.

[3] But as regards the union of the Lord’s Divine Essence with His Human Essence, and of His Human Essence with His Divine Essence, this infinitely transcends the reciprocal conjunction between man and the Lord, for the Lord’s internal was Jehovah Himself and therefore was life itself; whereas man’s internal is not the Lord, and therefore is not life but a recipient of life. Between the Lord and Jehovah there was union, but between man and the Lord there is not union, but conjunction. The Lord united Himself to Jehovah by His own power, and He therefore also became Righteousness; whereas man by no means conjoins himself by his own power, but by the power of the Lord; so that the Lord conjoins man with Himself. It is this reciprocal union that is meant by the Lord, where He attributes what is His own to the Father, and what is the Father’s to Himself, as in John:

Jesus said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me: I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me may not abide in the darkness (John 12:44-46), in which words lie hidden the deepest arcana-arcana concerning the union of good with truth, and of truth with good; or what is the same, concerning the union of the Divine Essence with the Human Essence, and of the Human Essence with the Divine Essence; and therefore the Lord says, “He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me;” and then almost immediately adds, “He that believeth on Me;” with words between that refer to this union, namely, “he that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me.”

[4] Again in the same gospel:

The words that I speak unto you I speak not from Myself; the Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. Verily I say unto you, He that believeth in Me, the works that I do shall he do also (John 14:10-12).

In these words are contained the same arcana, namely, those concerning the union of good with truth, and of truth with good; or what is the same, of the Lord’s Divine Essence with His Human Essence, and of His Human Essence with His Divine Essence; and He therefore says, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not from Myself; the Father who is in Me doeth the works;” and then He almost immediately adds, “the works that I do;” and here, as before, there are intervening words concerning the union, which declare, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” This is the mystical union of which many speak.

[5] From all this it is evident that the Lord was not another than the Father, although He spoke of the Father as of another, and this on account of the reciprocal unition that was to be effected and that was effected; for He so many times openly says that He is one with the Father, as in the passages just cited: “He that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me” (John 12:45) also, “The Father that abideth in Me; believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10-11); and in the same, “If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also” (John 8:19); and again, “If ye have known Me, ye have known My Father also; and from henceforth ye have known Him, and have seen Him; Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Father; Jesus saith unto him, Am I so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me?” (John 14:7-10 and again, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30 Hence it is that in heaven they know no other Father than the Lord, because the Father is in Him, and He is one with the Father; and when they see Him, they see the Father, as He Himself says (see n. 15).